Side effects of national health care

Haste makes waste! We have seen it with TARP, the stimulus bill, and the appointment of czars. The president is acting as if a hurricane is predicted for tomorrow. A 1,100-page stimulus bill is passed without its being read because it needs to be passed now. The TARP bill had to be voted on and passed immediately, but then not signed by the president until several days later and 94 percent of the money has yet to be spent. Another week and the whole economy would collapse. Instill fear and you can get people to do just about anything; that includes the Congress. They should be smarter than that.

Now, national health care. Hurry, hurry, hurry! Everyone needs insurance now! The clock is ticking. What are the side effects of the proposed program? One, staying healthy longer will just postpone the medical needs of the elderly, not eliminate them. The costs could be greater because of the extended lifetimes. Two, how many government-run businesses do you know that haven't cost more than estimated? So, if this is projected to cost $1 trillion over the next nine years, then count on its being $2 trillion over the next five years. Three, everyone will have to quit smoking, for example, yet states depend on cigarette taxes to fund many state programs. Four, there will be more and more regulations. The more regulations, the more regulators, all of whom will get paid, and the more paperwork, which is always expensive. I have just listed a few side effects; you add your own.

Many uninsured can afford insurance but would rather "gamble" on not becoming ill and use the money to buy flat-screen TVs and cell phones. Many others are illegal aliens; should we be paying their insurance? Do we really know how many citizens really cannot afford insurance?

Call your members of your congressional delegation and demand that they not vote on a universal health-care bill until it is completed with all of the amendments read and discussed, hearings held, all side effects listed, and the budget completed. Then, after they understand it, they will vote "no." You might also ask where in the Constitution the federal government is given the authority to establish our health-care system. No, sorry, "promote the general welfare" does not include health care. And, you might ask, if there are enough threats and the bill passes, will Congress have to be a part of this system or will we still be paying for special care for them? So many questions, so few answers.

Audrey Buffington
South Thomaston